4 ms·
What does it mean to trademark a color?
- personjerry 4y agoThese recipe preambles are getting ridiculous
- acadapter 4y agoIn Sweden there's a trademark for a shade of purple, but it's limited to the context of coffee branding
- AmericanChopper 4y agoIsn’t that generally how trademarks work? Isn’t that why Cisco is allowed to make its own iOS?
- randomdata 4y agoTwo operating systems would no doubt be considered to be in the same space. Apple licensed the iOS name from Cisco exactly to avoid a trademark suit.
- AmericanChopper 4y agoBad example perhaps (and I just noticed I got it backwards in my comment). But I’m sure there has to be a risk of creating confusion amongst consumers for trademark infringement to take place.
- nemoniac 4y agoInterestingly Apple also settled with the Beatles' record label after a trademark suit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- freejazz 4y agoOne is consumer and the other isn't, so probably no to be honest. If you are apple, better to get the license before you release a product like iOS which is on its what, 10th plus year?
- TheNewAndy 4y agoAnother example would be cadbury (chocolate company) and another shade of purple. It makes sense - if you go into the shops and see a wall of purple, it is nice if you know what this actually represents, and don't have all the different brands converging on the colour of the most popular brand.
- visarga 4y agoArtists wanting to own ideas, not just the expression. They want to be creative themselves while blocking the rest. Using legal threats to block others from creating in the same style happens today with AI too.
- mcv 4y agoIt's important to keep in mind that trademarks are not copyrights. Copyright protects the investment of an artist, trademarks protect the interest of the customer. Customers want to be able to trust that when they buy shoes with the Nike swoosh, they're buying real Nike shoes and not a fake knock-off. I think that's only an issue with paint when the paint claims to be from Jardin Majorelle when it's not. The mere shade of the colour is exactly the quality that the customers do want, and possibly intentionally in a different paint type or quality, so as long as the real producer of the paint is clear, it's not a trademark issue. What could be a trademark issue, is if there's another lush tourist garden with blue houses in Marrakesh. Of course tourists want to visit the real Jardin Majorelle and not a fake knock-off. But that's a protection within a very specific industry, and not claiming an entire colour.
- hulitu 4y ago> trademarks protect the interest of the customer Microsoft would like to dissagree. Windows Commander was fine as a name.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Karellen 4y agoWow. Another artist who's as much of a fucking douchebag as Anish Kapoor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anish_Kapoor#Vantablack_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anish_Kapoor#Vantablack_contro... Seriously. "No-one else gets to use this color but me." Fucking douchebags.
- sschueller 4y ago> "Alexa turn off the lights" > "I am sorry but that color is copyrighted, would you like to purchase it for one month?" Patenting the process to get to Vantablack is fine, but you have no right to own that "color".
- dtagames 4y agoPhotographs of the illuminated Eiffel Tower are also supposedly "protected" by trademark. Technically, you're not supposed to use one without permission of the government of Paris![0] How ridiculous is that? [0] https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel-tower https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel...
- freejazz 4y agoTrademark rights don't allow you to own the color. They allow you to restrict the use of the color within certain areas of trade, assuming you meet certain requirements.
- bootloop 4y agoDon't want to defend any practice here. But this looks like two different things to me. Vantablack is a product (not just a color) which is exclusively licensed to the artist by the manufacturer. If someone comes up with it's own product reproducing the same results these can still can be bought and used for art (and given the wiki entry this happened). Whereas in this article it appears to me that they trademarked the appearance of a color, resulting in other parties changing their recipe to not appear too similar, which I find a bit more problematic.
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
- conor_f 4y agoI do think trademarking a color is ridiculous. However, I read something before (likely on HN but I can't find it now) explaining the value companies like Pantone provide. When Pantone "publish" a color, they define how this color will look when displayed on different media, printed, digital, on concrete or on wood, or under different lighting conditions including UV or IR, etc etc. It's a lot more than just saying "I own #AABBCC". I don't know the specifics of this case, but this looks like it falls firmly into the category of "I'm egotistical" as opposed to the "I am providing additional value" category.
- dale_glass 4y agoYup, in fact setting a color to #RRGGBB in software doesn't mean very much. Okay, you asked for 100% red, but what is "100% red", exactly? It depends on how good the monitor is, and whether the calibration is good or not. That's where you need measurement and calibration. You can easily see the need for it if you compare multiple displays like a monitor, laptop and cell phone showing the same picture. They're quite likely to be noticeably different. And printing uses a completely different color system (CMYK), so things get even more interesting there.